Is Efficiency and Fairness the Same? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14600749
Slavery is a good example when efficiency and fairness are not one and the same thing. On utilitarian grounds slavery can be ,and often is ,more efficient than payed labor, on the other hand is it not fair nor just.

Outsourcing is also the same, it is efficient at making money and making your product more competitive by using the lower wages and lower safety standards of other countries but it is not fair, nor just to the people who made your company rich in the first place. (In ideal scenario. In rare cases outsourcing is valid - when your company wont survive without it for example)
#14601044
benj wrote:Human effort didn't create the the economies of scale that results from the increased size of networks.

Yes, it did.
That is as much a feature of the Universe as the air you breathe.

No, that's false. It would not exist but for the efforts of the people who made the network possible, who created the social, intellectual, and physical infrastructure it relies on, etc.
There would be no life without it.

Ignoratio elenchi.
Metabolism is consumption, production, distribution. Base economics.

No, because metabolism does not involve arm's-length exchange between distinct agents.
I believe Margaret Thatcher once said there was no such thing as society, just individuals.

One of the absurdities promulgated to enable atrocities.
A Socialist, looks at all the wealth, and says this is all due to humans organising themselves, with rules, laws and regulations.

Which is just as absurd, and enables its own atrocities.
The truth is, the wealth around us comes from humans agglomerating, because we can then exploit our environment in new ways . Producing Capital, like cities so we can, network more efficiently and sell goods and services in markets.

Funny how agglomerating humans in socialist China stayed poor, but when they allowed private ownership of capital, they got rich...
So, Geoists like me, who understand that the primary source of all life and wealth is Land, know that both Left and Right are wrong.

What do you consider the basic tenets of geoism? Because I consider myself a geoist, and while I understand that left and right are both wrong -- they both tell the same lie, though for opposite reasons -- and life requires land, I certainly don't think land is the primary source of wealth. Labor is also needed.
Land is at it's most expensive in city centres, because that's at the hub of our network, and where agglomeration effects at their highest.

Oh? You can get land in the center of Detroit almost for free, while pasture land in Switzerland will set you back millions.
Just like an deposit of oil or gold under the ground.

?? That's a very bad simile, as the value of such deposits is more dependent on the physical qualities nature gave them.
This is as fundamental as economics gets, and really important that those who talk about Land get it. It's the most valuable Land we have.

But it's even more important actually to understand that land value is nothing but the value of what the landowner expects to take from the community in return for nothing.
News ideas? Push back. It's what makes the internet great. Not.

Push-back is just another opportunity to learn, and to teach.
#14601269
JohnRawls wrote:Slavery is a good example when efficiency and fairness are not one and the same thing. On utilitarian grounds slavery can be ,and often is ,more efficient than payed labor, on the other hand is it not fair nor just.

Outsourcing is also the same, it is efficient at making money and making your product more competitive by using the lower wages and lower safety standards of other countries but it is not fair, nor just to the people who made your company rich in the first place. (In ideal scenario. In rare cases outsourcing is valid - when your company wont survive without it for example)


Slavery can be more wealth maximising for the slave owner (over the short term), than paying wages, but that's not the same as wealth and welfare maximising on a societal level.

Outsourcing or free trade has been shown to be fair and efficient to all participants. See David Ricardo on comparative trade.

Also the history of England after the Black Death of 1375, which put an end to Feudalism (slavery) is one where rents went down and discretionary incomes went up ie a fairer distribution of land.

This resulted is a thriving economy.

But, as efficiency is wealth and welfare maximising, then it is axiomatic that must also be fair. Not particularly interesting in my opinion.

What is interesting is when we apply that to public finance, as the sole purpose on the revenue and regulatory side can then be to eliminate all deadweight losses, as income/wealth inequality then finds its equilibrium.

Which just so happens to be at a much lower figure than todays.

Sorted.
#14601301
[/quote]
Yes, it did.[/quote]

Did human effort create the laws of geometry? So without humans a2 + b2 = c2 for a right angled triangle wouldn't be true?

No, that's false. It would not exist but for the efforts of the people who made the network possible, who created the social, intellectual, and physical infrastructure it relies on, etc.


That is right out of the Frank Knight school of thought:) For sure it takes human effort to exploit the efficiencies we get from networks and markets, but we didn't create the fact that networks and markets create economies of scale.

They just do, like a2+b2=c2 for a right angled triangle. Or Super Nova creates all the elements we call natural resources. Or something to do with Quantum Mechanics gave us our version of the Universe that makes life possible at all. (or God if you are that way inclined)

Point being the Universe, and the Laws that make it what it is, were not created by men. Discovered and used as Capital, like the efficiencies of networking, but not created.

Ignoratio elenchi.


Probably what Frank Knight thought about Georgism for the same reason.



Metabolism is consumption, production, distribution. Base economics.


No, because metabolism does not involve arm's-length exchange between distinct agents.


Doesn't matter if they are at arm's length, although arguably the Sun is, there is economy to life as there is to human endeavors. Humans are not the only animals to live in societies and create capital.

At the base level, life and therefore all human activity relies on the economy of metabolism.

Funny how agglomerating humans in socialist China stayed poor, but when they allowed private ownership of capital, they got rich...


But they are above nuts and berries. Their form of Capital (communism) tapped into Land (agglomeration) very inefficiently. Because it was inherently unfair.

It's like comparing two oil companies drilling for oil. One (communism) using bamboo while the other (capitalism) uses computer controlled diamond bits.

Agglomeration like all Land, can be efficiently or inefficiently utilised.

What do you consider the basic tenets of geoism? Because I consider myself a geoist, and while I understand that left and right are both wrong -- they both tell the same lie, though for opposite reasons -- and life requires land, I certainly don't think land is the primary source of wealth. Labor is also needed.


I say primary, because without Land, there is not Labour. Without Labour there is still Land.

Also, it is possible for humans to live without Capital. So, for me personally, Capital not a factor of production, rather a sub category.

Not that it really matters.

Oh? You can get land in the center of Detroit almost for free, while pasture land in Switzerland will set you back millions.


As we know, free markets are not necessarily efficient markets, and Detroit shows an inefficient use of agglomeration effects. Nevertheless, easily observable fact shows that in the vast majority of cases, land in city centres is the most valuable, whereas that is places of no/low population is worthless.

?? That's a very bad simile, as the value of such deposits is more dependent on the physical qualities nature gave them.


No, the value of natural resources depends on demand and scarcity. Oil was once a worthless pollutant after all.

For sure land where NYC stands now was once a worthless swamp I believe. Only when it became populated, and due to agglomeration, that population produced a surplus above subsistence, that resulted in wages and amenities did that land obtain a scarcity value.

But it's even more important actually to understand that land value is nothing but the value of what the landowner expects to take from the community in return for nothing.


Of course. It's pure ransom money. Even in a landowner builds a whole city with all the very best amenities, roads, telecommunications etc, without the agglomeration of people wanting to use that capital, the land underneath is still worthless.

As Shakespeare said, a city is nothing without people. And without the economies of scale we get from being close to one another, people wouldn't want to live in cities.

I strongly recommend that if you have an interest in economics you watch that lecture on youtube a linked on the previous page.
#14603621
benj wrote:Did human effort create the laws of geometry? So without humans a2 + b2 = c2 for a right angled triangle wouldn't be true?

?? So, you are saying that when an engineer uses the laws of mathematics to calculate a safe structural design, it is not his labor that contributes to the success of the construction project, but the "land" of mathematical law?

Please.
No, that's false. It would not exist but for the efforts of the people who made the network possible, who created the social, intellectual, and physical infrastructure it relies on, etc.

That is right out of the Frank Knight school of thought:)

Please provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support your claim. Thank you.
For sure it takes human effort to exploit the efficiencies we get from networks and markets, but we didn't create the fact that networks and markets create economies of scale.

We also don't create the fact that chickens lay eggs. So, by your "logic," the farmer who feeds and protects the chickens is just an idle landowner, charging rent for eggs that were produced by facts he did not create.

Please.
They just do, like a2+b2=c2 for a right angled triangle. Or Super Nova creates all the elements we call natural resources. Or something to do with Quantum Mechanics gave us our version of the Universe that makes life possible at all. (or God if you are that way inclined)

Point being the Universe, and the Laws that make it what it is, were not created by men.

Land is the whole physical universe aside from people and the products of their labor.
Discovered and used as Capital,

A law of the universe is not capital, as explained above. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
like the efficiencies of networking, but not created.

The efficiencies of a network are created by those who create the network just as surely as a dozen eggs are created by the farmer who brings together all the factors needed for their production. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
Ignoratio elenchi.

Probably what Frank Knight thought about Georgism for the same reason.

Incomprehensible.
Metabolism is consumption, production, distribution. Base economics.

No, because metabolism does not involve arm's-length exchange between distinct agents.

Doesn't matter if they are at arm's length,

Of course it does. That exchange is at arm's length is the defining quality of economic activity, which sets it apart from the mutual aid and social contribution seen even among the lower animals.
although arguably the Sun is, there is economy to life as there is to human endeavors.

Gibberish.
Humans are not the only animals to live in societies and create capital.

Yes, they are. Capital is defined as products of labor devoted to production. Labor is defined as human effort devoted to production. Therefore, it is logically impossible for any non-human animal to create capital. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
At the base level, life and therefore all human activity relies on the economy of metabolism.

I'm just trying to imagine how you imagine such a banality could be relevant or interesting....

Nope. Can't do it.
Funny how agglomerating humans in socialist China stayed poor, but when they allowed private ownership of capital, they got rich...

But they are above nuts and berries.

Another miracle of banality and irrelevance.
Their form of Capital (communism)

Communism is not a form of capital. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
tapped into Land (agglomeration)

Agglomeration is not land. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on this subject permanently.
very inefficiently. Because it was inherently unfair.

Life is unfair. You need to explain how, specifically, Chinese communist unfairness caused inefficiency. I could do that, but I'm not sure you can:
It's like comparing two oil companies drilling for oil. One (communism) using bamboo while the other (capitalism) uses computer controlled diamond bits.

See?
Agglomeration like all Land, can be efficiently or inefficiently utilised.

Agglomeration is not land.
What do you consider the basic tenets of geoism? Because I consider myself a geoist, and while I understand that left and right are both wrong -- they both tell the same lie, though for opposite reasons -- and life requires land, I certainly don't think land is the primary source of wealth. Labor is also needed.

I say primary, because without Land, there is not Labour. Without Labour there is still Land.

Banality. I repeat: what do you consider the basic tenets of geoism?
Also, it is possible for humans to live without Capital. So, for me personally, Capital not a factor of production, rather a sub category.

Of what? Some have called capital "stored labor," but that is not strictly true. Capital that took one hour of labor to produce can save 1000 hours of future labor. So it is much more than that one hour of labor stored up.
Not that it really matters.

Confusion and error matter.
Oh? You can get land in the center of Detroit almost for free, while pasture land in Switzerland will set you back millions.

As we know, free markets are not necessarily efficient markets,

What we know is that what some call "free" markets are anything but free, as they take for granted that people's rights to liberty have been removed by force and made the private property of landowners.
and Detroit shows an inefficient use of agglomeration effects.

It shows inefficient use of almost everything.
Nevertheless, easily observable fact shows that in the vast majority of cases, land in city centres is the most valuable, whereas that is places of no/low population is worthless.

Chicken and egg. People don't gather in those places in the first place precisely because the land is not advantageous.
?? That's a very bad simile, as the value of such deposits is more dependent on the physical qualities nature gave them.

No, the value of natural resources depends on demand and scarcity.

Another banality designed to evade the fact I identified. WHAT DO YOU INCORRECTLY IMAGINE DEMAND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES IS BASED ON, OTHER THAN THE PHYSICAL QUALITIES NATURE GAVE THEM, HMMMMMMMMMMM??
Oil was once a worthless pollutant after all.

And...? Land was once all worthless, too.
For sure land where NYC stands now was once a worthless swamp I believe. Only when it became populated, and due to agglomeration, that population produced a surplus above subsistence, that resulted in wages and amenities did that land obtain a scarcity value.

Garbage. If agglomeration produced land value, then land in Calcutta would be worth as much as land in NYC. It isn't.
But it's even more important actually to understand that land value is nothing but the value of what the landowner expects to take from the community in return for nothing.

Of course. It's pure ransom money. Even in a landowner builds a whole city with all the very best amenities, roads, telecommunications etc, without the agglomeration of people wanting to use that capital, the land underneath is still worthless.

Again, you are apparently just trying to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that the city, with its amenities, etc. will MAKE people want to use that land.
As Shakespeare said, a city is nothing without people.

Shakespeare was wrong. As WP Kinsella said, "Build it and they will come."
And without the economies of scale we get from being close to one another, people wouldn't want to live in cities.

Meaningless.
I strongly recommend that if you have an interest in economics you watch that lecture on youtube a linked on the previous page.

I watched it. It was a waste of time, packed with the kind of deep-sounding banalities you seem to favor. What do you think is interesting or informative about it?

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]